Turn on thread page Beta

Instead of a monarch, why not have a PM head of state? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMed)
    :rofl:

    /thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    It's unnecessary, and all you have to do is look to the countries where a presidential system has been successful to see that we are keeping the monarchy as a fight against an non-existent threat.
    Almost all countries which have shed their monarchies did not do so as a result of democratic consultation in times of peace and prosperity but capriciously during upheaval, foreign invasion or often as a precursor to a disastrous revolution. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps we are privileged in our ability to make a sensible and informed decision on the monarchy’s fate, given that most presidential republics did not have such an opportunity?

    The liberal narrative which assumes all monarchies will inevitably dissappear has a certain innocent charm about it. Yet it is a fallacy, based on a massive simplication of events.

    The monarchies which survive today all withstood the turmoil of the twentieth century. To the countries which still possess them this is testimony to their stability: they were not defeated in war, they did not undergo fascist occupation, they were not subject to a communist revolution and they are not the residue of a former collapsed state. The constitutional monarchy is a monument of stability and continuity. Consider the other monarchies which exist in Europe: Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden. Does this strike you as a particularly despicable assortment of countries? Given that these are amongst the most prosperous and civilised nations on the continent I would suggest not. On the contrary, this is a club which we are priveleged to to be a part of.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveThePhysicist)
    Almost all countries which have shed their monarchies did not do so as a result of democratic consultation in times of peace and prosperity but capriciously during upheaval, foreign invasion or often as a precursor to a disastrous revolution. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps we are privileged in our ability to make a sensible and informed decision on the monarchy’s fate, given that most presidential republics did not have such an opportunity?

    The liberal narrative which assumes all monarchies will inevitably dissappear has a certain innocent charm about it. Yet it is a fallacy, based on a massive simplication of events.

    The monarchies which survive today all withstood the turmoil of the twentieth century. To the countries which still possess them this is testimony to their stability: they were not defeated in war, they did not undergo fascist occupation, they were not subject to a communist revolution and they are not the residue of a former collapsed state. The constitutional monarchy is a monument of stability and continuity. Consider the other monarchies which exist in Europe: Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden. Does this strike you as a particularly despicable assortment of countries? Given that these are amongst the most prosperous and civilised nations on the continent I would suggest not. On the contrary, this is a club which we are priveleged to to be a part of.
    While I agree with everything you intelligently said I also felt the image at the top of the thread was a perfectly fine place to end at...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveThePhysicist)
    Almost all countries which have shed their monarchies did not do so as a result of democratic consultation in times of peace and prosperity but capriciously during upheaval, foreign invasion or often as a precursor to a disastrous revolution. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps we are privileged in our ability to make a sensible and informed decision on the monarchy’s fate, given that most presidential republics did not have such an opportunity?

    The liberal narrative which assumes all monarchies will inevitably dissappear has a certain innocent charm about it. Yet it is a fallacy, based on a massive simplication of events.

    The monarchies which survive today all withstood the turmoil of the twentieth century. To the countries which still possess them this is testimony to their stability: they were not defeated in war, they did not undergo fascist occupation, they were not subject to a communist revolution and they are not the residue of a former collapsed state. The constitutional monarchy is a monument of stability and continuity. Consider the other monarchies which exist in Europe: Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden. Does this strike you as a particularly despicable assortment of countries? Given that these are amongst the most prosperous and civilised nations on the continent I would suggest not. On the contrary, this is a club which we are priveleged to to be a part of.
    Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark were all invaded by the Third Reich during the Second World War. These countries are also more civilised due to their mode of capitalism, not because they possess monarchies.

    Besides, which EU republics in modern times are descpiable countries? Is the Republic of Ireland? Is Finland? Austria?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark were all invaded by the Third Reich during the Second World War. These countries are also more civilised due to their mode of capitalism, not because they possess monarchies.

    Besides, which EU republics in modern times are descpiable countries? Is the Republic of Ireland? Is Finland? Austria?
    My original point still stands: the republican assumption that the dissolution of all monarchies is both inevitable and desirable is false, given that many of the most successful countries in Europe possess one alongside a stable parliamentary democracy.

    It may appear that there is a global trend towards republicanism but this is a natural consequence of the fact that any political change to a monarchy is a one-way process. Given the historical nature of monarchies the prospect of a Royal Family being introduced to a hitherto-republican state is ludicrous and unfeasible. In modern times, Royal Families are only abolished, not created. It follows that the only possible trend is one towards republicanism, but this is not in itself an argument for republicanism.
    As I highlighted before, the fact that most Royal Families were abolished in times of capricious bloodshed does not add any support to the republican claim that monarchic abolition is an inherently wise and inevitable path. Very few countries abolished their monarchies as a result of sensible and informed deliberation. It follows that republicans cannot lay claim to the fact that the seemingly-universal trend towards abolition is an argument for their cause.

    If anything, the existence of a constitutional monarch is testimony to historical stability. Abolishing it for the sake of joining the historical trend is bonkers. If you support abolition then fine, but direct your arguments solely to Britain’s circumstances and don’t claim that global history is on your side.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveThePhysicist)
    Almost all countries which have shed their monarchies did not do so as a result of democratic consultation in times of peace and prosperity but capriciously during upheaval, foreign invasion or often as a precursor to a disastrous revolution. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps we are privileged in our ability to make a sensible and informed decision on the monarchy’s fate, given that most presidential republics did not have such an opportunity?

    The liberal narrative which assumes all monarchies will inevitably dissappear has a certain innocent charm about it. Yet it is a fallacy, based on a massive simplication of events.

    The monarchies which survive today all withstood the turmoil of the twentieth century. To the countries which still possess them this is testimony to their stability: they were not defeated in war, they did not undergo fascist occupation, they were not subject to a communist revolution and they are not the residue of a former collapsed state. The constitutional monarchy is a monument of stability and continuity. Consider the other monarchies which exist in Europe: Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden. Does this strike you as a particularly despicable assortment of countries? Given that these are amongst the most prosperous and civilised nations on the continent I would suggest not. On the contrary, this is a club which we are priveleged to to be a part of.
    I really could not have said it better myself. The monarchy is both a testament to past stability, and the vehicle through which stability can be maintained.
    The question is - is stability to be valued? This is entirely, I believe, contextual: in Britain it is wholly to be desired as we don't have a written constitution - the UK can adapt to any new challenges (to an extent, anyway) because we have this flexibility. Since legitimacy flows from the monarchy, we can avoid a disatrous written constitution, and constantly adapt - within a framework of stability.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Besides, which EU republics in modern times are descpiable countries? Is the Republic of Ireland? Is Finland? Austria?
    You have no grounds to redirect this question back to me. I am not arguing that republican systems are bad, I simply believe that different countries are conducive to different systems of governance. The argument of republicans on the other hand rests on the belief that monarchies are inherently bad, therefore by highlighting the fact that all the monarchs in Europe belong to stable, civilised and prosperous countries I can bring this argument into serious question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dieu et mon droit

    That's why.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Dieu et mon droit

    That's why.
    Expand. That's not a complete reason in itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Expand. That's not a complete reason in itself.
    The monarch has a divine right to rule.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    According to whom?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    God of course.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Oh. That's honest of you. So it relies entirely upon the chances of the God of Biblical Christianity existing as well as a particular interpretation of the Bible? Okay, at least that's a reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not entirely. There are many pratical reasons for monarchy.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,424

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.